Seahawks G.M. says team “debated” taking Dalton at No. 25

The Seahawks went into the draft with only Charlie Whitehurst at quarterback, and they left the draft with only Charlie Whitehurst at quarterback.

That has inspired some criticism locally and from folks like Trent Dilfer, who thought Andy Dalton might be ticketed to Seattle with the No. 25 overall pick. Seahawks G.M. John Schneider admits Dalton was a serious consideration there.

“We debated with Andy Dalton, there’s no question about it. But I think we all felt like we were at a point in our development where we couldn’t pass on a starting tackle right now,” Schneider said on the Kevin Calabro show on 710 ESPN Radio.

“Quite honestly, we’d like to have a guy, especially a rookie, be more of a developmental type and a guy more like Aaron Rodgers and sit for a year or two. So that was really the only point in the draft where there was a guy where we were like, ‘There he is, that’s a very viable option.'”

Schneider and coach Pete Carroll instead chose Alabama tackle James Carpenter. Schneider indicated that no other quarterbacks the rest of the draft particularly interested him compared to other positions.

In the end, it sounds like the Seahawks wanted a player that could help them win sooner than later, even if that means they will still be looking for that developmental quarterback in 2012.

“I think by choosing Carpenter that we were helping our team immediately, whereas with Andy we would have wanted a veteran in there with him anyway,” Schneider said.

Wonder if this “debate” contained the possibility of trading back, getting an extra pick, AND STILL getting Carpenter? With Carimi and Sherrod still on the board Carpenter would have lasted until Round 2. Glad they left Sherrod for the 2011 and eventual 2012 SB champions.

He brings up a valid point. Unless you draft a “sure-fire” guy, you will always need that fall back vetran option when drafting a rookie QB. So essentially, your first round pick is wasted. Now I’m not saying wasted as in bust, I’m just saying you don’t have immediate impact from your highest rated draftee. Tackle is one of the safest picks in the draft, and can pay the second highest dividends next to a QB. Also, If your not sold on a kid, don’t take him. That just sets the whole team back, and pretty much ruins the QB’s confidence forever. To be honest, I think that they should bring back J.P. and see what he do in a larger role. His only issues are mechanical. He has a strong arm, mobile, and can make plays. He holds onto the ball a bit too much, but coaching can correct that. He also will have a solid O-line, which he NEVER had here in B-Lo. Another plus is John Carlson, every struggling QB needs a good TE. I’m not saying bring J.P. back to start, but give him a shot next to a Hasselbeck or other Vet.

Glad you could tell that before any of them put on pads! Nice work Nostradamus! You and the all of the ESPN staff can all agree, great work!

Is anyone other than me tired of these so called draft experts? You know the ones who thought Jimmy Clausen was the next Joe Montana or the ones who thought Reggie Bush would be the next Bo Jackson? Wasn’t Alex Smith supposed to be the most “Cerebral” QB of all time?

Note to goawayeverybody… Just because ESPN tells you how good a draft is with all of their flashy graphics and loud theme music, does not mean they know what they are talking about. But then again, maybe you are Nostradamus!

Yeah, because a QB would have been a brilliant pick with the worst o-line in the NFL in front of him. That’s a sure-fire recipe for success. Just ask Dallas, look at all the success they’ve had with that plan.

Look, Seattle needed help on the o-line, BADLY. Picking o-linemen may not be popular with morons like Kiper but neither was Walter Jones, and he led us to our first SuperBowl. Kiper has been wrong more often than right, he even said Randy Moss wouldn’t be fast enough for the NFL and shouldn’t have been drafted before any other receiver that year. Great call, genius. I’m glad our front office doesn’t care what the “experts” think.

3-4 yrs from now, the Seahawks will be getting the last laugh as they pound the rock all the way to a championship.

If you are still “debating” in the middle of the draft, then you shouldn’t be a GM in this league. Good GMs have already run the scenarios and execute their gameplan come draft day.

In addition to the plan if they stayed at number 16, the Jaguars GM had already run the scenarios of Blaine Gabbert dropping to picks 9,10, or 11 and what it would take to trade up to take him. Schneider and Carroll had months to set up their strategy, and they were still “debating” when it was their turn to pick????

I really think if Seattle can get McNabb without giving up picks that they can compete now and groom whichever QB they bring in next year. Look what Favre did under Darell Bevell late in his career. I don’t think Whitehurst is the answer at all and I wouldn’t give up the 1st or 2nd round pick you would give up in next years draft to pick up Kolb. Use that pick on the QB they hope to groom.

Here’s the thing, Dalton is a 4th round talent – 3rd at best, who went in the 2nd round due to the collective ineptitude of this year’s quarterback class.
Ryan Mallet went in the 3rd round. If the Seahawks had taken either of these guys with their first pick the same guys who are criticizing them would be applauding them or at least be less critical.

Glad I don’t take the opinions seriously of those who think a 3rd round quarterback was worth a 1st rounder or that Andy Dalton was worth a first round pick.

“should have traded back” Last time I checked, you needed to have someone willing to trade with you. If fact, they tried to trade back, but couldn’t reach a deal.

If the guy you believe best fits your system is sitting there in round one and probably won’t be there when you next pick rolls around, why do not take him in round one? Because Kiper or McShay say this guy or that guy isn’t a first round pick?

Thanks to Tim Ruskell, the Hawks O-Line was atrocious. No QB can be effective while flat on his back, They addressed one of their biggest areas of need with the player they thought would best translate into their new system.

Come back in a few years and we can see how good or bad the draft was for every team. Willing to bet some of “winners” end up being “losers” by that time.

So when Carpenter was called “soft and flabby, very unimpressive” and said to have the “worst body” at the Senior Bowl, that signaled “There’s our guy” to the Seattle faithful? When most scouts didn’t even have Carpenter in the top 5 OTs and many had him around 8th best, that meant he was must have? When 18 OT prospects (that’s eighteen!) outlifted him at the combine, that was okay? Sorry Seattle fans, but there were respected scouts that didn’t even have that guy in the top 2 rounds. Time will tell.

Don’t know that I’d get really excited about Tom Cable as the OL coach either. It’s not like he built a juggernaut of an OL in Oakland.